On 8/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But in every related article? What does it have to do with the
Wikimedia
Foundation? Does it need to be in Wikipedia's article, History of
Wikipedia
article, Wikipedians With Articles article (or is it a list?), Jimmy
Wales'
article, Larry Sanger's article, Citizendeium's article, the Essjay Controversy article.
You have two options that I can see. Give a brief description of the dispute (one or two sentences) or say something quite vague and undisputed ("[[Larry Sanger]], who was with Wikipedia from the beginning, ...") and let the reader follow the link if they want to know more.
This is pretty much the approach I've tried taking. However, there are some editors who are ardent that it be one particular way. There's been an RFC already, and extensive discussion currently collected on the talk page of Larry Sanger's article. I'm beginning to think consensus is on my side here, but there's one or two who will edit war about it to no end...now, or weeks from now, they'll be back to make changes to the disputed form.
So, I'm at a loss. I don't want to fight this, I've tried discussing it but it's like talking to a wall. In fact, since I've found more on this dispute, it looks like QuackGuru was cutting and pasting previous quotes of himself to our recent conversation. From what I've found this morning, I think theres enough to take it before arbcom. I don't want to. It's essentially a content dispute that's so near to our hearts its driving editors to disruptive behavior.
Is there a way, another fora than arbcom, where the community can discuss this issue - decide how we'll use the word "founder" and settle it for good?
InkSplotch